Union chief's ego gets in way as he overplays players' hand
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0313-haugh-nfl-labor--20110312,0,7161607.column
When NFL dust settles, owners still will be rich and the players will have gained … what?

March 13, 2011

In trying to absorb the avoidable antitrust lawsuit filed Friday under Tom Brady vs. the NFL that preceded the league's first work stoppage in 24 years, one thought won't go away. (Well now I have another reason to hate the Gayby. - mesa)

Maybe it's time the NFL players considered putting their names behind another signal-caller. And I don't mean Brady's fellow plaintiffs Peyton Manning or Drew Brees. (Two more losers. - mesa)

If DeMaurice Smith, the leader of the now-decertified NFL Players Association, showed as much interest in making a deal as he seemed to have in making history, perhaps we would be debating who got the best of whom in the new collective bargaining agreement.

Instead, 1000 Football Drive leading to Halas Hall has become 2011 Lockout Lane, and Smith as much as anybody steered the sport down an uncharted road that looks bumpy.

Need basic training in SEO and social media? Sign up for 435 Digital seminars at Tribune Tower >>

"We're disappointed in the need to take this step, but it is necessary for the long-term health of our league,'' Bears President Ted Phillips said in a statement about the NFL's lockout. "Ultimately we believe an agreement will be reached at the bargaining table.''

Forcing the dispute into a courtroom only threatens to cure our national addiction to the NFL.

In football parlance, all the players needed Smith to do was manage the game. Be Kyle Orton in a $5,000 suit and keep the chains moving. Based on reports, Smith insisted on trying to force the big play. The only people dancing in the end zone now are Washington law partners. Who has David Boies in the Fantasy Football Lawyers League anyway?

The players didn't need Smith's inappropriate analogies to war or 11th-hour ultimatums. They needed perspective. They needed compromise; they got confrontation over money.

Smith's risky decision to establish leverage by decertifying the union and turning this into a protracted courtroom battle ignored the league's last-ditch proposal that addressed critical player concerns. The NFL said the offer Smith walked away from included the following:

1) Maintaining a 16-game schedule through 2012; 2) implementing a rookie wage scale and funneling savings to veterans and retired players; 3) cutting the number of offseason workouts and organized team activities; and 4) contributing $82 million into a fund for retired players and offering current players lifetime health coverage.

The league also vowed to disclose limited audited profitability information and reduce the money owners should be given off the top of league revenues from $1 billion to $325 million. A lawyer for the former NFLPA responded by saying the league had "lied.''

That's always a possibility. The NFL spins better than a new toy on Christmas morning. Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners deserve a measure of blame for not doing a better job of building or earning trust. But lost in Friday's inflamed rhetoric assessing the failure were two key points.

•If current players really wanted to do something profound for those before and after them, they would have focused on the league's offer of lifetime health coverage and increased retirement benefits instead of the disparity in profit. That's sacrifice in the name of something.

•Smith consistently sought to present the players as partners in the league with the owners. As much as the ability and charisma of players have put America's most popular sport at its apex, they are employees. The owners are employers.

Players and owners aren't partners on equal footing. Without the NFL, most owners still would be filthy rich. Dare I suggest you can't say the same about many of the 1,900 players.

That doesn't mean players need to take a deal on terms the owners dictate. But it should mean players recognize they benefit from the opportunities the NFL provides more than these negotiations have shown.

The lack of trust between players and owners is nearly as old as the league itself. But before Friday, the league never had been healthier. Players never had been richer. The game never had been better. Everybody was, duh, winning.

Workers in this union aren't being oppressed. The average NFL salary in 2010 was $1.9 million. Sure, it's a violent sport, but the NFL's final offer improving short- and long-term health coverage reflected that reality.

"A deal will get done, and we expect to play football in 2011,'' Phillips said.

I want to believe Phillips. Just as I will want to believe the next player who swears he's playing for the love of the game.

But as long as Smith remains in a position of influence with players whose best interests he claims to represent, I will have my doubts.

pete74

03-13-2011, 08:00 AM

i cant see the problem here. the players are paid more then fair. they should be happy they make millions playing a sport that we all play sometimes as fun.

Atlanta Dan

03-13-2011, 08:12 AM

i cant see the problem here. the players are paid more then fair. they should be happy they make millions playing a sport that we all play sometimes as fun.

Owners are asking for givebacks - given how much the league is making would you agree to roll back an agreement you had negotiated 4 years ago if your employer was trying to force you to do it?

TRH

03-13-2011, 09:45 AM

hmm, interesting article...as i thought myself that the player rep was going WAYYYYYYYY overboard in both demands and attitude. I kept saying "who does this guy think he friggin' is??".

SteelCityMom

03-13-2011, 09:52 AM

Upshaw is rolling in his grave right now.

TRH

03-13-2011, 09:53 AM

Upshaw is rolling in his grave right now.

you're right. I think he would have made a more fair play with the owners and would have tried to avoid any kind of stoppage.
This new guy's head is in the clouds and needs to come back down to earth.

Atlanta Dan

03-13-2011, 11:29 AM

Maybe the owners should have put the offer they allege was made in the last several days on the table in 2010?

For someone who is "overplaying his hand" by resorting to litigation (as opposed to ever so reasonable owners who appealed the American Needle case they won to the Supreme Court and got smoked in a 9-0 decision) it certainly appears that the owners only got serious about negotiating after Smith & the NFLPA "resorted to litigation" and Judge Doty blew up the owners strategy of renegotiating TV contracts to bank that money as a war chest to ride out a lockout.

SC Mom - I always respect your opinions and would be interested as to why you think Gene Upshaw would be rolling over in his grave because the NFLPA is seeking to preserve the terms of a CBA he negotiated which the owners are attempting to cut back?

Today's NYT article indicates that, contrary to the article that started this thread, there apparently is blame to be placed on both sides

“This is no different than any other industry where the parties scare each other with lawsuits,” said Gabe Feldman, the director of the sports law program at Tulane University Law School. “There’s a lot of time between now and a true litigation Armageddon. They’re not fighting over a fundamental shift in the sport. It’s still just a dollars issue, and if you’re fighting over $500 million, that seems like a lot, but not relative to the $9 billion you’d be giving up by not playing,” he said, referring to the N.F.L.’s revenue last year. ...

Players’ positions had hardened in part by what they considered an indication that owners did not respect them: few owners were directly involved in negotiations, and on Thursday, players were particularly upset that they never negotiated face-to-face with the owners’ full labor committee. ...

“The parties are going to get their money’s worth out of their lawyers,” Feldman said. “It’s uncharted, complex territory. That’s why I think there can be reason for optimism, because neither side can be too comfortable with their positions. There is enough risk on both sides to get them back to the table.”

i cant see the problem here. the players are paid more then fair. they should be happy they make millions playing a sport that we all play sometimes as fun.

Which is a testament to how little you understand. While the players make impressive wages, blame Capitalism, not them.

This is a money-making business, and the players are arguing for what they determine as fair in this. Can we trust what they say? Not really, nor the owners. But if you think what you and your family do is even remotely close to what these players do, I'm afraid you need to read a bit more.

pete74

03-13-2011, 06:39 PM

Which is a testament to how little you understand. While the players make impressive wages, blame Capitalism, not them.

This is a money-making business, and the players are arguing for what they determine as fair in this. Can we trust what they say? Not really, nor the owners. But if you think what you and your family do is even remotely close to what these players do, I'm afraid you need to read a bit more.

your insane. if i tell my company that the 100 workers in our office want 20% raises because the company made 2 billion last year i would be out of a job. your freaking nuts if you think the players deserve a raise. this is a business and thats how businesses work.

let me ask you this, if the owners take a major loss can they cut every players salery? hell no. there the owners and the players make more then enough. you got to be out of your freaking mind if you belive tom brady or whoever deserves a raise for playing 1 football games a year. get a clue my man

oh yea one more thing, maybe you dont work but there are alot of people who work alot harder then a football player and make alot less. go get a job in a coal mine and bust your ass for 12 hour shifts for 32 grand a year and come back and talk to me. better yet go join the marines and see how you feel after making 29 grand a year as a private. your out of your mind brother

stb_steeler

03-13-2011, 10:10 PM

It makes me sick and im sure most of you agree, what these players make on their measly 5-10 mill contracts (some more) but im goin with averages here. I watched the episode with Bryan Gumble on HBO about past NFL players that are broke after retirement. The one guy was a former player from the Tampa Bay Bucks....The guy had 3 houses, spent ungodly amount on fancy cars and gambling. And now he's on tv crying he's broke. Sorry my friend i really dont feel bad for ya. Like Pete said, try workin on our salary at a mere 29g's a year. Give me a few million i bet i can make it last a lifetime, but then again us common folk know we would have to make it last! Im not sayin players dont deserve to make good money but maybe they should be required to take a money management class or something if they dont allready do. You'd be surprised at how many players dont think about their future, its all about the here n now.

OX1947

03-13-2011, 10:36 PM

I find it funny how so many people and even the guys on NFL Sirius radio start using everyday business sense as a comparison to the NFL business. How many of you guys would still be at your job if you "allegedly" killed someone, or got a DUI or were arrested for whatever? NONE.

The NFL is not like normal business. Players can kill someone in a drunk and driving situation and still have a job in the NFL (Leonard Little). The NFL is not like every business. Its sports entertainment. Where only a few people have the skill to do the job.

Also, the owners care about the fans right? Well, when they save the 800 mil or 1 bill that they wanted, are they going to lower ticket prices? Are they going to continue to monopolize the games by making you go to a bar to watch games or make you buy that garbage Direct TV crap?

Only a small percentage of NFL players make a lot of money. The NFL isnt baseball or Basketball. For example, Lamarr Woodley made 500K this last year. Sure, thats a lot of money and most of us would be living the life. However, we do not have agents, managers where 25% of that money goes. Then you throw in taxes which kills 50% of that on top of it. You get my point.

After that, you factor in the dangers of this game. Players ruin their health forever and the NFL doesnt put money to help them after a certain amount of time. And what do they do to help promote their "safety" conduct? Lets play 2 more games and lets fine players money for tackling.

The owners are liars and thieves. Roger Goodell is a piece of shit. I have seen guys like him many times. You wonder why this country is where it is, its because of people like Roger Goodell and the Jerry Jones of the world. They have all the money, all the resources, yet they still try and get more.

How can an owner be losing money in a league that makes 9 billion a year and money is evenly spread out? Explain this to me?

Will they lower ticket prices if they save this money? Who are they doing it for? The Owners? This whole thing is garbage and I blame the owners and roger goodell 100%. I hope Goodel resigns, I would even trade two NFL seasons for it. He has ruined this league for me and if it werent for the Steelers, I would have stopped watching it a year ago.

MasterOfPuppets

03-13-2011, 10:51 PM

Owners are asking for givebacks - given how much the league is making would you agree to roll back an agreement you had negotiated 4 years ago if your employer was trying to force you to do it?
thats it... people keep forgetting the most important part....
the players aren't striking for more money .. the OWNERS are the ones shutting it down for more money.
the players simply asked that they prove their profit margins are as meager as they want people to believe. yet as easy as it would be , if they are telling the truth , they refuse to offer up the evidence.

bornaSteelersfan

03-14-2011, 01:52 AM

If you read "Art Rooney Q&A On Steelers.com", you may have a slightly different feeling about the way things went down. It sounds as if the players wanted only 1 thing, completely open books. They never seemed to negotiate at all. When the Owners put an offer on the table that seemed to give them many of the things they wanted, the players basically just walked out without looking at it. The players didn't say something like, "OK, we are getting somewhere. Let's extend this a little longer so we can really discuss what the offer is and understand it better." There is supposed to be some kind of counter offer. That's what negotiation is all about. People do it every day in unions, buying cars, buying houses, etc. With so much at stake, you don't just walk out the door and say, "Screw you, we are going to court!" I am not taking a side, here because they are both wrong. Both sides have showed greed and arrogance. Neither side even seems to consider the fans. The only winners in any of this will be the attorneys.

kirklandrules

03-14-2011, 12:00 PM

thats it... people keep forgetting the most important part....
the players aren't striking for more money .. the OWNERS are the ones shutting it down for more money.
the players simply asked that they prove their profit margins are as meager as they want people to believe. yet as easy as it would be , if they are telling the truth , they refuse to offer up the evidence.

I really have a hard time feeling bad for the players on this one. Player payroll has gone up far more as a % in the last few years than most average workers. And seeing rookies sign $10M + per year deals when they haven't done anything in the league is getting out of hand. Additionally, the owners kept to the terms even though some of them struggled during the recent downturn. Everyone talks about these owners being billionaires. Did anyone check to see how much of that money was tied up in the teams and how much they actually were pocketing? Looking at this from a local perspective, how rich are Dan and Art III? They had to pull themselves through knots just to take partial ownership of this team. Finally, I'm all for seeing someone make a ton of money when they put their money on the line. Yes, the players are on the front lines doing the job, but how much would those guys be making without football? Risk - reward ... the owners are putting up the money and the players ARE getting a part of the reward. Having said all that, I do think the players should be demanding something established for retirement and disability and the league should ensure those things are in place. I'm a working schmuck and my employer let's me take a part of my paycheck and put it into a 401(k) ... that's my retirement ... I am saving for it ... it's not given to me. The league should set a 401(k) policy similar for its players. Let them contribute to a plan using part of their pay to ensure its saved for the days they want to retire (not just from football but when they are done working altogether).

pete74

03-14-2011, 03:35 PM

I really have a hard time feeling bad for the players on this one. Player payroll has gone up far more as a % in the last few years than most average workers. And seeing rookies sign $10M + per year deals when they haven't done anything in the league is getting out of hand. Additionally, the owners kept to the terms even though some of them struggled during the recent downturn. Everyone talks about these owners being billionaires. Did anyone check to see how much of that money was tied up in the teams and how much they actually were pocketing? Looking at this from a local perspective, how rich are Dan and Art III? They had to pull themselves through knots just to take partial ownership of this team. Finally, I'm all for seeing someone make a ton of money when they put their money on the line. Yes, the players are on the front lines doing the job, but how much would those guys be making without football? Risk - reward ... the owners are putting up the money and the players ARE getting a part of the reward. Having said all that, I do think the players should be demanding something established for retirement and disability and the league should ensure those things are in place. I'm a working schmuck and my employer let's me take a part of my paycheck and put it into a 401(k) ... that's my retirement ... I am saving for it ... it's not given to me. The league should set a 401(k) policy similar for its players. Let them contribute to a plan using part of their pay to ensure its saved for the days they want to retire (not just from football but when they are done working altogether).

i agree with every word here. this is the way business's work. wallmart employees making $8 an hour are certinatly not going to strike and say since the company made 15 billion last year they want 20% of that split among them. it dosnt work that way and people dont seem to understand that.

there isnt to many people out of college that make as much as the lowest paid rookie in the NFL. there also isnt to many heart or brain surgeons who have been n the field there entire lives making as much as the top NFL players.

as for hard work, yes they work hard but there are millions and millions of people especially military who work much harder for much, much, much, much less money. the players make very good money and should be happy for that.

Atlanta Dan

03-14-2011, 04:42 PM

i agree with every word here. this is the way business's work. wallmart employees making $8 an hour are certinatly not going to strike and say since the company made 15 billion last year they want 20% of that split among them. it dosnt work that way and people dont seem to understand that.

there isnt to many people out of college that make as much as the lowest paid rookie in the NFL. there also isnt to many heart or brain surgeons who have been n the field there entire lives making as much as the top NFL players.

as for hard work, yes they work hard but there are millions and millions of people especially military who work much harder for much, much, much, much less money. the players make very good money and should be happy for that.

Your quarrel appears to be with the allocation of resources in a free market where a central authority does not set the wage scale for all occupations. If soldiers were valued more highly than professional athletes, other entertainers and investment bankers they would be paid more. They are not and are welcome to try to make a NFL team or replace Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs if they have grown weary of life in the military. Although the level of compensation earned by soldiers and certain other professions such as nursing may say quite a bit about the society in which we live, I do not follow why it means someone should not seek to maximize their value for services rendered in another occupation.

Directors in investment banks and law firm partners certainly have greater compensation draws when the firm has a good year and most of their compensation is tied to the profits of the firm for that year. More profits equal more $$ paid out in salaries and bonuses - so the concept of asking for more $$ when the company is more profitable is not taht unusual a bargainimng position to take.

While the educational background of a typical NFL player is closer to that of a Wal-Mart employee than that of a surgeon, attorney or I-banker, there are a lot more I-bankers, attorneys and surgeons than there are NFL players - in terms of the winnowing process it is a lot harder to rise to the top of the NFL than it is to become a partner in a Manhattan law firm or director at a Wall Street I-bank.

NFL players are asserting their bargaining power and other legal remedies that are available to them while resisting givebacks to an ownership group that certainly is not in the equivalent position of companies such as GM or bankrupt airlines that have asked for employee givebacks.

Unlike auto workers and Wal-Mart employees members of the NFLPA have the leverage and very rare talents to take that position. The fact that the owners apparently started serious negotiations in the last two weeks indicates that fact is beginning to sink in.

BigRick

03-14-2011, 06:37 PM

I' ve got the solution. Let the player pool their money and buy the teams over time. Then they can have all the revenue! That way the greedy owners and player could be happy.
The only losers would be US THE FANS, same as it is now! :banging:

pete74

03-14-2011, 07:53 PM

Your quarrel appears to be with the allocation of resources in a free market where a central authority does not set the wage scale for all occupations. If soldiers were valued more highly than professional athletes, other entertainers and investment bankers they would be paid more. They are not and are welcome to try to make a NFL team or replace Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs if they have grown weary of life in the military. Although the level of compensation earned by soldiers and certain other professions such as nursing may say quite a bit about the society in which we live, I do not follow why it means someone should not seek to maximize their value for services rendered in another occupation.

Directors in investment banks and law firm partners certainly have greater compensation draws when the firm has a good year and most of their compensation is tied to the profits of the firm for that year. More profits equal more $$ paid out in salaries and bonuses - so the concept of asking for more $$ when the company is more profitable is not taht unusual a bargainimng position to take.

While the educational background of a typical NFL player is closer to that of a Wal-Mart employee than that of a surgeon, attorney or I-banker, there are a lot more I-bankers, attorneys and surgeons than there are NFL players - in terms of the winnowing process it is a lot harder to rise to the top of the NFL than it is to become a partner in a Manhattan law firm or director at a Wall Street I-bank.

NFL players are asserting their bargaining power and other legal remedies that are available to them while resisting givebacks to an ownership group that certainly is not in the equivalent position of companies such as GM or bankrupt airlines that have asked for employee givebacks.

Unlike auto workers and Wal-Mart employees members of the NFLPA have the leverage and very rare talents to take that position. The fact that the owners apparently started serious negotiations in the last two weeks indicates that fact is beginning to sink in.

Directors in investment banks and law firm partners certainly have greater compensation draws when the firm has a good year and most of their compensation is tied to the profits of the firm for that year. More profits equal more $$ paid out in salaries and bonuses - so the concept of asking for more $$ when the company is more profitable is not taht unusual a bargainimng position to take

They do that in the NFL as well, its bonus money.

ricardisimo

03-14-2011, 08:02 PM

Directors in investment banks and law firm partners certainly have greater compensation draws when the firm has a good year and most of their compensation is tied to the profits of the firm for that year. More profits equal more $$ paid out in salaries and bonuses - so the concept of asking for more $$ when the company is more profitable is not taht unusual a bargainimng position to take

They do that in the NFL as well, its bonus money.
These are the arguments that we heard during the Bubble Years, just before we all saw exactly what these CEOs were so good at: cooking the books. I would have thought that you'd know better than still to be giving these bozos any props at this point in our current crisis. These guys are mafiosi, living off the players' work and the public dime (that's right, PUBLIC money, not ticket sales.) They deserve zero sympathy.

Besides... which is it? Are they doing fabulously well, and so deserving of bonuses? Their claim is quite the opposite. They clearly suck at managing their business, because they're crying poor despite record profits and $1/year stadium leases. So, are they rolling in it, or are they bankrupt?

If your company's profits shot up, along with its guaranteed public subsidies, and you told your workers they needed to accept a pay cut or get locked out, and then your workers asked to see your books, and you declined... what do you think everyone would call you?

Atlanta Dan

03-14-2011, 08:16 PM

They do that in the NFL as well, its bonus money.

Bonus money is tied for the most part to meeting individual player performance targets - I am talking about the overall bonus pool for highly compensated (or highly overcompensated) professionals getting bigger and bonuses/partnership draws increasing when the firm makes more profit.

I agree what the military is paid compared to what professional athletes are paid is obscene - but that extends to a lot of disparities in income - such is the price we pay for an alleged free market and a society that will be regarded in history's rearview mirror as having had some odd priorities with regard to those occupations which were valued most highly.

TRH

03-15-2011, 06:25 PM

your insane. if i tell my company that the 100 workers in our office want 20% raises because the company made 2 billion last year i would be out of a job. your freaking nuts if you think the players deserve a raise. this is a business and thats how businesses work.

let me ask you this, if the owners take a major loss can they cut every players salery? hell no. there the owners and the players make more then enough. you got to be out of your freaking mind if you belive tom brady or whoever deserves a raise for playing 1 football games a year. get a clue my man

oh yea one more thing, maybe you dont work but there are alot of people who work alot harder then a football player and make alot less. go get a job in a coal mine and bust your ass for 12 hour shifts for 32 grand a year and come back and talk to me. better yet go join the marines and see how you feel after making 29 grand a year as a private. your out of your mind brother

agreed. Can you imagine if we all went in to our employers and demanded this, demanded that next year (or we ain't coming to work...), because the co. made a good profit? You'd be out on your a** so fast your head would swim.
Why are the players any different from anyone else. They have a job..are paid extremely, extremely well....and they have owners, who, oh yeah...own the team. This whole thing is disgusting.

TRH

03-15-2011, 06:27 PM

These are the arguments that we heard during the Bubble Years, just before we all saw exactly what these CEOs were so good at: cooking the books. I would have thought that you'd know better than still to be giving these bozos any props at this point in our current crisis. These guys are mafiosi, living off the players' work and the public dime (that's right, PUBLIC money, not ticket sales.) They deserve zero sympathy.

Besides... which is it? Are they doing fabulously well, and so deserving of bonuses? Their claim is quite the opposite. They clearly suck at managing their business, because they're crying poor despite record profits and $1/year stadium leases. So, are they rolling in it, or are they bankrupt?

If your company's profits shot up, along with its guaranteed public subsidies, and you told your workers they needed to accept a pay cut or get locked out, and then your workers asked to see your books, and you declined... what do you think everyone would call you?

So you're saying the Rooney's suck at managing their business?

Atlanta Dan

03-15-2011, 07:57 PM

agreed. Can you imagine if we all went in to our employers and demanded this, demanded that next year (or we ain't coming to work...), because the co. made a good profit? You'd be out on your a** so fast your head would swim.
Why are the players any different from anyone else. They have a job..are paid extremely, extremely well....and they have owners, who, oh yeah...own the team. This whole thing is disgusting.

Ummm .. the difference is the players appear to believe they have the leverage to back up their demands and you obviously do not believe you would have the ability to pull off a similar demand to your boss. Neither would I :chuckle:

But high powered professionals in such fields as law and finance repeatedly tell the firm for which they work they want more $$ or they will walk and they get it because under how this society allocates distribution of income they are deemed to be worth it by the firm for which they work.

Those who have minimal or no leverage over their employers and do not have the ability to seek stratospheric levels of compensation are not morally superior to those who do. That leverage is what makes the NFL players different from you and me

This video sums it up

Muz1OcEzJOs&feature=related

ricardisimo

03-16-2011, 01:50 AM

So you're saying the Rooney's suck at managing their business?
No. The Rooneys are claiming that they suck at managing their business. How else can the owners' claim that they are going bankrupt with the current CBA be interpreted? Record profits + record TV ratings + record public subsidies + stabilized payroll expenses somehow astonishingly = bad deal for owners who are going broke.

So, yeah, the Rooneys (and the rest of the owners) must be complete simpletons to turn that formula, within the most successful and profitable sports league on the planet, into a money loser. Of course, you're completely missing the point if you think I'm just hurling epithets at the Rooneys (nice attempt at spin, though.)

SteelersinCA

03-16-2011, 12:52 PM

agreed.[I] Why are the players any different from anyone else.

Would you watch the NFL if they imported Canadian league players? No? OK, players win. They have the leverage you don't have, that's what makes them different. It's not hard, not rocket science. Every time someone is in a unique position they try to advance their position. When you go to buy a car, do you negotiate? If it's towards the end of the month and they need the sale and you get the exact same car for $2000 less than a friend of yours paid for it, do you feel bad?

BTW, grocery workers go on strike, auto unions threaten strike, all these people threaten strike, so it's not like the players are unique in that regard, except they aren't saying pay me more or we are striking. The OWNERS are saying pay us more or you aren't allowed to play.

mesaSteeler

03-16-2011, 09:03 PM

Well if the player are so talented at handling money let them take the risk to put up their own capital to run the league, make the TV and marketing deals, and build the stadiums. Most of the all players are so incompetent at handling money that they end up bankrupt after they stop playing.

If the current crop of players are so indispensable then let them form their own league. If they did I bet their league wouldn't last past pre season. I would not invest in it.

ricardisimo

03-16-2011, 09:52 PM

Well if the player are so talented at handling money let them take the risk to put up their own capital to run the league, make the TV and marketing deals, and build the stadiums. Most of the all players are so incompetent at handling money that they end up bankrupt after they stop playing.

If the current crop of players are so indispensable then let them form their own league. If they did I bet their league wouldn't last past pre season. I would not invest in it.
Everyone seems to think that owning an NFL franchise takes a lot of guts, brains and skill. It doesn't. There's no risk involved. This isn't the real estate market. You can be the losingest team in the league for decades on end and still turn a profit. Just look at the Bengals, Browns, Bills, Raiders, etc. All very profitable teams. The most profitable team in the league (at least as of a few years ago) was the Redskins. Go figure.

Atlanta Dan

03-16-2011, 10:07 PM

Everyone seems to think that owning an NFL franchise takes a lot of guts, brains and skill. It doesn't. There's no risk involved. This isn't the real estate market. You can be the losingest team in the league for decades on end and still turn a profit. .

Yep - these alleged free market zealots that own NFL teams owe their profitability to being subsidized by the taxpayers

NFL lockout: Owners get the keys to stadiums, fans get the bills

Their world view was summed up the other day by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones: “I just spent a billion dollars on a stadium, and I didn’t plan on not playing football in it,” he said.

Now, that’s a funny thing for Jones to say, because as it happens, he doesn’t actually own Cowboys Stadium. The city of Arlington does. And Jones didn’t spend a billion dollars to build it. Arlington taxpayers passed a bond issue and wrote him a check for $325 million. City sales tax increased by one-half a percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent, all of which may hurt the local economy. Jones is merely a tenant, with a lease.

Virtually every one of the league’s 31 stadiums was built or renovated with the assistance of public money, about $6.5 billion worth, according to the Sports Fans Coalition. And that doesn’t include the indirect subsidies, the infrastructure improvements, municipal services, gift-revenues, and foregone property taxes, which can push the cost of hosting an NFL team 40 percent higher.

There have been 11 new stadium constructions since 2002, and public funding for them averaged 54 percent, $295.3 million per project. Frequently the funding came in the form of tourism taxes, such as Arlington’s, which can further burden a community, making businesses less competitive and suppressing revenue and growth. In some places, such as Philadelphia, which helped construct Lincoln Financial Field for Jeffrey Lurie, the debt has helped make the city a credit risk, which makes it difficult to issue new bonds for things it urgently needs.

When you look at it that way, the owners have some nerve shutting down.

“We’ve asked, as fans and taxpayers, if money goes into a stadium, then shouldn’t we have an equitable stake in the team?” Frederick says.

It wasn’t enough that Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown got 95 percent public financing for Paul Brown Stadium, which cost $455 million. The Bengals also got a sweetheart 27-year lease that said they didn’t have to pay rent after 2009. Taxpayers cover maintenance, and most of the yearly operating costs. The bill for 2009 came to almost $9 million. Meantime, the Bengals get to keep the naming rights, and revenue from advertising, tickets, luxury suites, concessions, and most of the parking. All of which makes them one of the most profitable teams in the league — with a 4-12 record.

I get why someone has trouble feeling bad for any group of employees where the starting salary is >$300K but please spare me the homilies about the NFL owners being a group that exemplifies the spirit of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman

SteelersinCA

03-16-2011, 10:11 PM

Well if the player are so talented at handling money let them take the risk to put up their own capital to run the league, make the TV and marketing deals, and build the stadiums. Most of the all players are so incompetent at handling money that they end up bankrupt after they stop playing.

If the current crop of players are so indispensable then let them form their own league. If they did I bet their league wouldn't last past pre season. I would not invest in it.

No one said anything about them being talented at handling money, they don't get paid for that. They get paid to play football.